Tag: National Organization for Marriage

Another Important Voice Weighs in on Gay Marriage

Joe McVeighLeave a comment

Right on the heels of David Tyre’s anarchy predictions, another prominent voice has come out against same-sex marriage. This time it’s my dog, Mr. Bo Jangles, who has expressed concern over the legalization of gay marriage.

Mr. Jangles has been known to voice his opinion in the past, usually when he’s hungry, when he really has pee, or when there’s a pile of shit on the sidewalk that he wants to stick his nose in. But in a rare instance of speaking out on public policy issues, Mr. Jangles told of his apprehensions about what same-sex marriage could mean for other dogs around the country.

“Imagine if I had been raised by two men,” he seemed to say with those puppy dog eyes. “I would probably still be the fearless home protector that you rely on, but would I be able to snuggle with you as good as I can now? Would my licks to your face be as soft and full of devotion as they are now? I don’t believe so because those are the kind of things only a female master can teach.”

Proceeding down the same logical path, Mr. Jangles likened the social and legal approval of same-sex marriage to the anarchy that comes when thunder strikes or when the garage door closes.

But Jangles isn’t the only one making his sound heard in McVeigh Manor. Mr. Jangles’s opposition to gay marriage, which was backed by the National Orgasm for Marriage, comes on the heels of my cat Mittens’s support for the same-sex marriage law passing through the chambers of my house.

“Why the hell would I give a shit what you worthless humans do?” Mittens glared. “Yeah, I’m for it. I’m for any laws that offer Emperor Mittens a chance at more food. Got it, dummy? Now, get off the couch. All this meaningless talk of human concerns has nearly bored me to death. I need a nap.”

The coming out, so to speak, of Mittens was shocking since she has always been either too uninterested or too asleep to engage anyone in any kind of social interaction. But last week her energy in declaring her stance reminded me of the time I tied a piece of string to the back of the chair.

No word yet on where my fish stands on this issue. Or my imaginary iguana.

Stay tuned to hear what these important voices have to say.

Related posts:

Removing the Middleman from the Gay Marriage Debate

Removing the Middleman from the Gay Marriage Debate

Joe McVeighLeave a comment

I’m hearing a lot about gay marriage. There are debates going on throughout the nation. From stately Minnesota to free-wheelin’ California to… Iowa? Seriously? OK.

Anyways, everyone seems to be worried about whether or not the gays will be allowed to marry. But I think everyone is missing a very big point here. This debate isn’t about whether marriage is defined as being solely between a man and a woman (and according to one faaaaaabulous source, it isn’t). The gay marriage debate is really about whether or not marriage is defined as being solely between one penis and one vagina.

People always want to throw around words like “man” and “woman,” but when you get right down to it, these are just the middlemen and women in this debate. I say we cut them out and put all our cards on the table. Are we able to agree that marriage can be between not only a penis and a vagina, but also between one penis and another penis, or even one vagina and another vagina? Because that is the real question.

I’ve even thought of a helpful way for confused people to tackle this question in their minds by using their hands. Ready?

First, hold up both of your index fingers. Next, pretend that they are penises. Then poke the tips of them together. Now, does this game feel more or less natural than if you looped one index finger in the thumb to make an imaginary vagina? Forget that this hand symbol is a reference to homosexuality in some countries. Stay focused. Does the pretend penis poking make you feel uncomfortable enough to make it constitutionally illegal? How about if they were real penises instead of pretend penises – would that make it all better?

What I’m trying to do here is remove the middle man. We all know that both men and women are capable of love, compassion, fidelity, and sometimes a desire to spend their lives growing old with another person. We also know that both men and women both have heads, shoulders, knees, and toes (knees and toes). So what does that leave? Penises and vaginas.

So while this gay marriage debate has never been about whether or not two reasonable, consenting adult males, who both have heads, shoulders, knees, and toes (knees and toes), could get married, why not just cut the shit? The debate has been about whether or not two reasonable, consenting adult males or females, who both happen to be connected to penises or vaginas, respectively, can get married.

I’m going to go ahead and say that it’s definitely OK for two penises to get married, just because we know there’s a place to put the rings.